Samity Limited & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6394 Cal

17.12.2021
 SL No. 239
Court No. 24
   (P.M)/ AB
                              WPA 4421 of 2015

                  Patahensal Samabay Krishi Unnayan
                          Samity Limited & Anr.
                                    Vs
                      The State of West Bengal & Ors.
                          (Via Video Conference)


                                        Mr.   Debabrata Saha Roy,
                                        Mr.   Pingal Bhattacharyya,
                                        Mr.   Subhankar Das,
                                        Mr.   Neil Basu
                                                ... for the petitioners


                                        Mr. Susovan Sengupta,
                                        Mr. Subir Pal
                                                    ... for the State



                     The petitioner No. 1 is a Co-operative Society

               and the petitioner No. 2 is its Secretary.             The

               petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28th

               January, 2015 passed by the District Controller, Food

               and   Supplies,   Purulia,    the   Appellate    Authority,

               upholding the order of termination of license passed

               by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies,

               Purulia.

                     The    Sub-Divisional     Controller,     Food   and

               Supplies, Purulia issued a show cause notice dated 5th

               June, 2014 to the Secretary of the Co-operative

               Society wherein as many as six irregularities were

               mentioned. The petitioner was asked to show cause in

               writing within seven days from the receipt of the notice
                  2




for such irregularities and also asked to appear for a

hearing on 13th June, 2014.

         According to the petitioners, the aforesaid

communication dated 5th June, 2014 was served

through post under a postal envelope dated 5th June,

2014 but was dispatched on 9th June, 2014.             The

postal    envelope   was    actually   served   upon   the

petitioners on 18th June, 2014. By the time the

envelope reached the petitioners, the period for filing

reply to the show cause and the date of hearing was

over.

         A termination notice was issued by the Sub-

Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies on 13th June,

2014 wherein it was mentioned that the answer to the

show cause was found not satisfactory and in the

hearing the petitioner admitted the faults, so the

license stood terminated.

         The petitioners challenged the same by filing a

writ petition being W.P. No. 19413(W) of 2014 which

stood disposed of by an order dated 17th July, 2014

wherein the Court was pleased to dismiss the writ

petition on the ground of existence of alternative and

efficacious remedy.        The Court observed that the

petitioners were at liberty to file an appeal against the

impugned order.
                3




      The petitioners thereafter preferred an appeal

before the District Controller, Food and Supplies,

Purulia on 18th July, 2014. The petitioners raised all

points in the appeal and in the said appeal the

petitioners admitted that on 11th June, 2014 the

petitioner No. 2 went to the office of the respondent

No. 4 for submitting the report to the show cause

notice and on the self-same date the petitioner No. 2

was heard. The petitioner No. 2 did not have any

preparation for the hearing.

As no order was passed in the appeal within a

reasonable period of time the petitioners again filed a

writ petition being W.P. No. 29066 (W) of 2014 which

stood disposed of by this Court on 10th December,

2014. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to

dispose of the appeal upon giving opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner. The petitioners were giving

liberty to file written notes of submissions before the

appellate authority.

In compliance of the order passed by the Court,

hearing was conducted by the District Controller, Food

and Supplies on 7th January, 2015. Written notes of

submission were submitted by the petitioners on 7th

January, 2015. The Appellate Authority after

considering the written submission filed by the

petitioners passed an order on 28th January, 2015

upholding the order passed by the Sub-Divisional

Controller, Food Supplies, Purulia.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the same. It is

the categorical case of the petitioners that as the show

cause notice dated 5th June, 2014 was not served

prior to 18th June, 2014, the authority under any

stretch of imagination could not have issued the order

of termination on 13th June, 2014.

It has been contended as the date of hearing as

mentioned in the show cause notice was fixed on 13th

June, 2014 and the petitioners received the said

notice on 18th June, 2014 a fresh opportunity ought to

be given to the petitioners to place their case.

In support of the submission made by the

petitioners that the authorities ought not to decide the

issue with a pre-determined mind set the petitioners

have relied upon the judgment delivered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of ORYX

Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.

reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427.

The court in the aforesaid decision held that a

quasi-judicial authority while acting in exercise of its

statutory power must act fairly and must act with an

open mind by initiating a show-cause proceeding. A

show-cause proceeding is meant to give the person

proceeded against a reasonable opportunity of making

his objection against the proposed charges indicated

in the notice.

According to the petitioners, the authorities

took a decision in the matter prior to giving a

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

The learned advocate representing the

respondents opposes the prayer of the petitioners. It

has been submitted that the petitioner No.2 duly

appeared before the concerned authority on 11th June,

2014 and made submissions on behalf of the

petitioners.

It has further been argued that assuming that

the disciplinary authority did not afford any

opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, but the said

opportunity was extended by the appellate authority.

The petitioners were duly heard by the appellate

authority and the petitioners submitted their written

notes of submissions which was duly considered by

the appellate authority. There is no requirement of

giving any further opportunity of hearing.

I have heard and considered the submissions

made on behalf of both the parties.

It appears from records that an inspection team

comprising of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Chief

Inspector and Sub-Inspector visited the shop of the

petitioners on 4th June, 2014. Certain irregularities

were noticed by the inspection team. Immediately on

5th June, 2014 a show cause notice was issued

directing the petitioners to show cause within seven

days from the receipt of the notice for such

irregularities. Date was fixed for hearing on 13th June,

2014.

Though the petitioners have submitted that

they received the notice to show cause after expiry of

the stipulated time period, but admittedly the

representative of the petitioners visited the office of the

respondent authority on 11th June, 2014 and made

submissions. The appellate authority has clearly taken

note of the fact that on 11th June, 2014 the

petitioner's representative appeared before the Sub-

Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies on 11th June,

2014 and made submissions.

The alibi of the petitioners that on 11th June,

2014 they went to the office of the Sub-Divisional

Controller for submitting weekly return for the Fair

Price Shop was negated. The appellate authority

observed that the owners are supposed to submit the

weekly return of the Fair Price Shop to the Inspector

and not to the Sub-Divisional Controller. The

contention of the petitioners that on 11th June, 2014

they went for the purpose of submission of the weekly

return was disbelieved and found contradictory by the

appellate authority.

The submission of the petitioners that the

impugned order is a cryptic one and no reason has

been mentioned therein does not appeal to the Court.

On perusal of the order of termination as well as the

order passed by the appellate authority it appears that

very many reasons have been mentioned for

termination of the license of the petitioners. An

opportunity of hearing was also granted to the

petitioners by the appellate authority.

The grievance of the petitioners that the

disciplinary authority did not grant any opportunity of

hearing to the petitioners was taken care of by the

appellate authority where both hearing was afforded

as well as written notes submitted by the petitioners

were accepted.

The ratio of the judgment referred to by the

petitioners is a very settled proposition of law. Quasi-

judicial authority ought not to decide an issue with a

closed and/or pre-determined mind set. It does not

appear from the facts of the case that the authority

proceeded with a closed mind and passed the order of

termination. Enough opportunity was given to the

petitioners to defend their case which the petitioners

failed to do. It does not appear that there was any

procedural impropriety at the time of passing the

order impugned.

It seems that the petitioners are trying to reopen

the issue all over again on the plea of non-receipt of

notice in proper time when actually all steps leading to

termination of license were followed by the authority.

Delayed receipt of the show cause notice did not make

much of a difference in as much as the procedure

followed by the authority was in accordance with law,

and the petitioner was not prejudiced in any manner.

In view of the above, I do not find any reason to

interfere with the order of termination.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on completion of

usual formalities.

(Amrita Sinha, J.)